|
Aeka 2.0 posted:This guy makes it look fun and easy. What a jerk. XTimmy posted:He has access to around $10 000k worth of Kinos, so frankly he should spend everyday with a smile a mile wide plastered to his face. I can't watch Youtube at work, but I'm guess you're talking about Peter Hurley?
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
Yeah it's Peter. I learned a lot watching that video surprisingly. I do find that photographing people is part the actual subject, and part the photographer actually being charismatic enough to bring out the best in them. Often times the subject can have a very awkward expression because the direction is poor and they have no idea what they should be doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I do find that photographing people is part the actual subject, and part the photographer actually being charismatic enough to bring out the best in them. That's really his key. He works with great talent because of his name and strong brand, and he is great at bringing out whatever needs to come out in the models. Cool dude, his DVD set is worth a watch if you want to learn a lot of good tricks for working with your subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
I'm about halfway through the Onelight Workshop right now and I'm really surprised with how much I'm learning about posing models. Great stuff. One thing though - will growing a long scraggly goatee help my photography?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
 Potrait I did of my brother. He's an interesting subject to me, because he dislikes getting his picture taken, which makes him challenging. I belong to the camp of people who don't get good shots consistently, but rather on a luck basis. I'm not even sure if this is a good photo, but I really like it. The picture is sort of interesting, because I actually shot it with the built-in flash on my 1000D, but I fitted a homebuilt reflector thingy on there. One thing I find challenging when working with portraits in post processing, is to not make people's eyes all black. Is there some brilliant technique, or should I just be careful with the levels? In this particular one I actually copied his eyes from a layer where they were more visible and put them on top.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 11:58
|
|
let it go dude, hail satan
|
somnambulist posted:Yeah it's Peter. I learned a lot watching that video surprisingly. I do find that photographing people is part the actual subject, and part the photographer actually being charismatic enough to bring out the best in them. Oh absolutely, without a doubt. Technical competency and even knowing the best way to pose a model will only get you something that is technically correct. Your subject needs to either have a real expression or be *extremely* good at acting, otherwise something will look off. A lot of people are shy or afraid of looking silly, and a lot of photographers are so wrapped up with staring into their LCD screen that they create a disconnect. If there's no communication, then you're just a camera operator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Rambowjo posted:
I think the biggest issue affecting this is that he's not engaging the camera in any way. There's no eye contact, no way for him to connect with the viewer. It goes along with this discussion about engaging your subject. Most people hate having their picture taken, and you need to make them feel comfortable enough to bring out their personality. Also related, I hate having my own picture taken and it drives me nuts that people expect me to be a good subject just because I take portraits of others. Makes me realize just how important communicating with your subject is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I think the biggest issue affecting this is that he's not engaging the camera in any way. There's no eye contact, no way for him to connect with the viewer. It goes along with this discussion about engaging your subject. Most people hate having their picture taken, and you need to make them feel comfortable enough to bring out their personality. I think a lot of people are afraid of the lens. It's easier to look pretty by looking somewhere else, than looking at the lens, or at least looking engaging. He's smiling because I was joking around with him, but indeed the lack of eye contact is detrimental to the picture. I like having my picture taken, if I know I can look good given the way the photo is taken. If I know the way the photo is taken is likely to make me look unappealing, it'll make me a little nervous, which in turn will definitely make me look unappealing. Oh the wonders of photology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Rambowjo posted:
The background is really distracting and there's no context for it to make it part of the portrait. Portraits don't have to have seamless backgrounds, but the environment should reflect something about the person or at the very least, some context for the scene. I like his expression, but I don't like him looking down. It loses a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Super big derail but somnambulist commenting made me think about the floating project! I was wondering, since the "floating" effect was made with two images, how do you like the subject if you use flash? One picture without the subject with flash going off and one picture with the subject with flash going off as well? Or should I stick with natural light only?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Fun session with a friend, trying some various things. I really like the second one. Her expression in the first one is too much of an "I know the camera's there" face. A little bit tense for my liking. Also, the setting doesn't quite have that "magic" feel that the second one has. It's a great touch stopping down to a slow shutter speed and a large aperture to abstract her surroundings, and that is what adds that slight tone of magic or mystery to this shot. I'm a bit iffy about her arm closest to the camera, though - you can't really tell what's going on with it until you look more closely. I think it's an angles thing. somnambulist posted:Yeah it's Peter. I learned a lot watching that video surprisingly. I do find that photographing people is part the actual subject, and part the photographer actually being charismatic enough to bring out the best in them. Just as a small additional point to this: I'd like to add that charisma doesn't have to be this big, loud, chatchatchatchatchatchat sort of business that you see from guys like Peter Hurley, Dean Collins, Perou etc. I'm not saying they're not great at that side of it, as they obviously are. I'm saying that if you're not like that, or if you feel like an immense dick trying to force it like I do, it's not your only way to relax a subject and get charisma across. You just have to be likable and do it on your own terms. If you start forcing that style of interaction you see from guys like that and it's not really you, it doesn't work. Just a bit of an aside, really. If that IS you, or if you can be like that naturally, then definitely do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I really like the second one. Her expression in the first one is too much of an "I know the camera's there" face. A little bit tense for my liking. Also, the setting doesn't quite have that "magic" feel that the second one has. It's a great touch stopping down to a slow shutter speed and a large aperture to abstract her surroundings, and that is what adds that slight tone of magic or mystery to this shot. I'm a bit iffy about her arm closest to the camera, though - you can't really tell what's going on with it until you look more closely. I think it's an angles thing. I'd like to reiterate that because I definitely felt the pressure to be super bubbly and outgoing when I first started doing portraits, and that's not who I am at all. I eventually just fell into being myself because it was exhausting trying to be ridiculously chatty when I'm not, and people actually relaxed, to my surprise. It's very easy for people to pick up on your mood and they can tell when you're forcing it. Being natural will help a ton to relax your subjects. That being said, you still have to engage them, you can't just tell them to stand there and click away. Just don't have to be Jasmine star crazy. But I felt really good after my first boudoir shot and my subject told me how relaxed and awesome she felt, even though she was super nervous to be basically naked in front of me. However you can be natural, genuine and accommodating will help heaps with relaxing your subjects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 21:09
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I'd like to reiterate that because I definitely felt the pressure to be super bubbly and outgoing when I first started doing portraits, and that's not who I am at all. I eventually just fell into being myself because it was exhausting trying to be ridiculously chatty when I'm not, and people actually relaxed, to my surprise. It's very easy for people to pick up on your mood and they can tell when you're forcing it. Being natural will help a ton to relax your subjects. That being said, you still have to engage them, you can't just tell them to stand there and click away. Just don't have to be Jasmine star crazy. I have to agree with this. All in all just be who you are. If you're faking it it'll show and will just make everyone uncomfortable. I don't chat much on my shoots but mostly in between shots (moving locations) but that's me, I'm chatty and can start talking about whatever. I have a few lines to make people laugh to get a few "cute" shots and that usually seals the deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Don't follow the above advice if you're a sadist. Having to deal with the police every time you do a photoshoot is not constructive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Hey - it worked for Terry Richardson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
I want to put this one to the Dorkroom - this is from a long-term project I'm working on right now. Any critique is fine if you don't feel like answering my specific question, but I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you think the story is here, going off the image and no context from me. That's the most important thing to me for this photo. Any other critique is, as always, extremely welcome, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
Cool photo, but I just wanted to share that this is how it was coupled with the ad at the bottom of my iPhone app... I chuckled for a while at that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I want to put this one to the Dorkroom - this is from a long-term project I'm working on right now. I'm gonna guess something to do with the creative process, with the spatters representing ideas coming and going in "spurts"? that's what i get from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
 Claire by Andrew Wong MPLS, on Flickr This was the first time I put my new 85 1.8g on the D800 and really my first attempt at any portrait work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Gazmachine posted:I want to put this one to the Dorkroom - this is from a long-term project I'm working on right now. No comment about the story, but I would try to clone out some of the more distracting elements (towel, wall fixtures) and maybe play around with the white balance. Something seems funny about the lighting too but I'm not the guy to talk to about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:I'm gonna guess something to do with the creative process, with the spatters representing ideas coming and going in "spurts"? that's what i get from it. OK. With absolutely no clues to go off, that's plenty close enough to make me happy  so thanksLargeHadron posted:No comment about the story, but I would try to clone out some of the more distracting elements (towel, wall fixtures) and maybe play around with the white balance. Something seems funny about the lighting too but I'm not the guy to talk to about that. Yeah, I've been a bit liberal with my processing here - will probably tone it down significantly in the final edit. I'm at odds with whether I should clone out the wall fixtures, because this is one of a selection of photos taken over a year, many of them in that room, so if it were to not appear in one image, I'd probably have to remove it from all the images. Maybe that's not a good enough reason to leave it in, I dunno. My other concern was, as this is documentary photography, I didn't want to start removing things that were in the shot at the time. Again, this could be a mistake - I don't suppose removing a cloth, for example, is going to ruin the "purity" of the image. Thanks for the feedback, all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
This weekend I got to try my hand at some actual portraiture with actual models, for the first time! I had a lot of fun and learned a tonne, my mental checklist for shooting has quite a few more things on it now and I'm glad I'm finding more ways to improve. Emma 2 by dick town, on Flickr  Emma 4 by dick town, on Flickr  Carrie 1 by dick town, on Flickr  IMG_6188 by dick town, on Flickr  Girls & Alice by dick town, on Flickr What I found really hard - and I'm sure those more experienced than me know how to deal with it - was trying to overcome each girl's sort of quirks, like sometimes a smile would be a little too toothy and I'd have to try and work around it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Dick Danger posted:This weekend I got to try my hand at some actual portraiture with actual models, for the first time! I'm not super experienced, but i feel like a lot of these would benefit from you being higher up than the models. a lot of them you're looking mostly up their nostrils, which isn't the most desirable angle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Dick Danger posted:This weekend I got to try my hand at some actual portraiture with actual models, for the first time! I had a lot of fun and learned a tonne, my mental checklist for shooting has quite a few more things on it now and I'm glad I'm finding more ways to improve. Am I crazy or is she wearing the exact same clothing as that girl turned backwards in the first photo you posted on these forums (a month ago maybe)? I like these two though, good simple but solid shots. I noticed you're getting much better at using your camera, nice job!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Am I crazy or is she wearing the exact same clothing as that girl turned backwards in the first photo you posted on these forums (a month ago maybe)? I like these two though, good simple but solid shots. I noticed you're getting much better at using your camera, nice job! E: Just checked, they are different dresses. Same fashion/community though. Just between you and me the dresses all look the same anyway. whereismyshoe posted:I'm not super experienced, but i feel like a lot of these would benefit from you being higher up than the models. a lot of them you're looking mostly up their nostrils, which isn't the most desirable angle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Where do you live? Those are the weirdest outfits I've seen that weren't part of an organized shoot. And yeah, I second the advice about being slightly higher than the girls, or at least at eye level for sure. It's generally a lot more flattering and seems a lot more natural when photographing women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
isn't there an A/T thread about this? Like some Japanese thing where girls dress up in faux-period dresses. here we go Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 11:02
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:isn't there an A/T thread about this? Like some Japanese thing where girls dress up in faux-period dresses. CarrotFlowers posted:Where do you live? Those are the weirdest outfits I've seen that weren't part of an organized shoot. As for the angle, should I be aiming to shoot from above as a default sort of thing, or is it more a matter of just not shooting from below?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 12:23
|
|
|
I don't think any of the pictures are ruined by the angle to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
I think all of the shots are a little underexposed, but it could just be the product of natural light. I really like the shots anyhow, especially the one with the two girls sitting on the steps. edit: or maybe it's not underexposure as much as it's simply the shadows being too strong, like the blacks. edit2: I guess it's just the price you pay for shooting in natural light. I tried doing something in Photoshop, but I can't really get it to work. Rambowjo fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
I think I recognize the designer, their stuff was at the recent Carpe Noctum fashion show, yes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Multiple Choice Critique This post processing looks: A) Cool B) Like poo poo C) Meh 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
She's dead, Jim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
yeah her skin is very, very grey. i want to say bring up your highlights a bit? it looks like they got crushed and are almost ..the opposite of blown out? in places
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:yeah her skin is very, very grey. i want to say bring up your highlights a bit? it looks like they got crushed and are almost ..the opposite of blown out? in places Yeah it feels like it should be highcontrast bleach-bypass-y but instead it's low contrast bleach-bypass-y
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Multiple Choice Critique try using a selective colour layer and knock down the cyans and up the magentas
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
Yep, that's the same muddy-highlight effect you get if you bump the Recovery slider up too high in LR3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
 I tried this, I couldn't push it too far because of the initial image quality. But yeah this is basically tweaking with selective colour and then adding a contrast bump. It definitely looks processed but it has a bit more of a fashion vibe to it I think
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
I think the way the whites of her eyes are gray rather than white really throws it off. No matter the processing on the rest of the image, I think that's the biggest reason she looks like a zombie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:42 |
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I think the way the whites of her eyes are gray rather than white really throws it off. No matter the processing on the rest of the image, I think that's the biggest reason she looks like a zombie. I just noticed that, you're right. Maybe try dodging in the eyes a bit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:10
|
|